common wrote:
Keep in mind, we used to be even closer to government than we think we are now. Close enough to "see the whites of their eyes", if you get my drift. The people who represented us used to be somewhat fearful of the citzenry as a whole. Not so much any more. They seem to have us right where they want us.
That's right. Close in some ways, very distant in others. Maybe this is why we YELL at each other so much. Because we know our words will have no effect.
I think there are two good ways to answer this question. 1. The rich person became rich because of all the structures in place provided by the government and its policies. If there had been a fair/flat tax in place, there is a chance that the social ill that would result would have prevented him from making any money and would probably be poor as a result. Rich people are the ones who have and for the future will benefit from the tax structure and gov spending, even though it is often indirect. Gov programs are often created cynically, in that they were set up to appease the poor so they would have just enough to get by and could still go to work and not strike or commit crimes. Social and political stability benefits the rich more because it reduces the cost of labor, credit, and trade and thus allows them to get rich in the first place. 2. Empirical research shows that progressive income tax rates improve economic efficiency at a microeconomic level. Business owners who face a 10% income tax will have to take $1.1 million out of their business to buy a $1 million item (such as a painting, or a summer home) for personal consumption. Faced with a 55% income tax rate, the business owner will have to take $1.55 million out to purchase the same item. The owner will buy the necessities (private schooling, penthouse apartment, Swiss Alps vacation) no matter what, but will hold off on the extreme luxuries (Ferrari, yacht, private jet) until his business has grown substantially. I can't imagine there being anything someone with an annual income $1 million can't buy that he would suddenly be able to buy if his income suddenly increase to $2 million (aside from really exuberant and wasteful luxuries like yahts), and vica verse.
have a lamb kaboob mate wrote:
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
No, they won't.
If you are talking about a corporate tax shell overseas, yes they will and already do. If you mean outsourcing jobs, they will and already do. But they will not find a climate more friendly to making gobs of money than in the good ol' USA.
Candada wrote:
It is not fair. It is wrong.
They ought to just say "everyone is taxed 20%"
Why is that the fair solution? Why not say "Everyone is taxed $X"? What makes your solution objectively the "fair" one and not mine?
Oh, right, "fair" is just a term that gets tossed around that does have any fixed meaning. It's like "judicial activism", which actually means "court decisions I don't like".
There are lots of ways to raise taxes and lots of ways to define a tax system. You can tax wealth, income, consumption, production, imports, etc (and we do). What is fair? The idea is to have taxes that raise sufficient money for the government to operate without imposing too much of a burden on the people and the economy.
[quote]any thinking people on here? wrote:
person 1 has $20. person 2 has $4. they must raise $8 total in order to survive a snowstorm. who should pay the $8? 4 and 4? then person 2 is broke and cannot survive afterward. $8 and $0? then the rich are paying for everything which also isnt fair. what if person 1 had $1,000,000? then he should obviously pay for all of the snowstorm because what the hell else is he going to use the money for. change the variables all you want, there is no right answer to every scenario.
Holy Crap. This is what our schools are producing?
I sure hope that Letsrun posters are merely an unintelligent, unenlightened subset of our society adnd do not represent mainstream thinking
We shouldn't base our tax system on what's fair. If we did that, we would probably end up bankrupting half the populace while collecting practically no revenue. The best way to do it is to focus on economic efficiency. Giving tax breaks to new mothers isn't exactly fair, but it would cause them to get back to work earlier and would increase national income substantially. A fair/flat tax does not allocate resources nearly as efficiently as a progressive tax. I'm not going to try to convince anyone here that the government is able to allocate resources efficiently, but in the cases of pensions, unemployment insurance, and health care, it often does a better job than the free market, just because most people are not far sighted enough to plan for long term problems like these.